85 richest people as wealthy as half of the world's population

reply to post by NavyDoc


Yes, people like that is a prime example. I honestly can't understand the greed that drives these people.... It's never enough, always want to scheme more more more. What drives the compulsion? Why do people want 10 mansions, 50 lambos, a yatch, a jet...... I just don't see the point in hoarding all that wealth/stuff. It makes no sense at all to me. Acting in this greedy way is ruining everything. It's like they just don't care about the future generations. Don't they realize there is going to be a tipping point? It's like they think it's all just a damn game or something.

CIAGypsy

AthlonSavage

Things are Tough all over

Well...I always look for the silver lining...

Fortunes are up $13M since yesterday. I've got a bet with a couple of pesky Russian comrades that I will overtake them by the end of the year...

Now who wouldn't want to beat the Russians?? lol...that'd be so un-American of you.

I bet your so wealthy you don't even drive a car.

Carried around on a throne perhaps.

If I was that weathly I would buy this site and add a I WIN button each thread.

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

Money is an invention.

There was a time without it.

Now I could help with some skills I have others for free and you 2 which makes both happy.
I know it doesn't work this way today, but it's possible.

It's sad really that only money drives (today) to gets things done and gives some kind of reward.
With lots of money you can almost get anything done and people do anything for you.
That's the mindset today. Doors will be open, people almost bow down and on the same time, when they see a begger/someone living on the Streets, they act they must avoid some dog # laying on the Streets.

It's so hard locked so it's hard to change, if ever?
But it can be simple yet it seems the harderst thing ever..

It's a mindset and belief system. OK maybe I'm just dreaming and it's just like nature, where the ''strongest'' just kills, but we can be more then animals surely. Money is a beast, eat or get eaten.

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

TKDRL
It's like they just don't care about the future generations. Don't they realize there is going to be a tipping point? It's like they think it's all just a damn game or something.

Of course they care about future generations, thats all they care about, but it is their future generations that is all they care about. The road to 'old money' can start today, in this moment there is no end in sight, so you can never have enough, the more they have means that many more bottles of crystal to top off the hot tub on their air yacht.

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it wouldn't. It hasn't worked before and it would not be a step in the right direction.

Now answer my question: how wealthy does one have to be to merit destruction from you? One million? A hundred million? A billion? More? Less? What is the set point for destruction to make things "fair?"

If what they report is true or near enough accurate, all i can really do is stare at the figure and laugh at how stupid humanity is to defend this sort of greed.

1 Trillion dollar's between 85 people?

How have those 85 people worked harder than anybody else? *Insert laughing smiley here*

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it wouldn't. It hasn't worked before and it would not be a step in the right direction.

Now answer my question: how wealthy does one have to be to merit destruction from you? One million? A hundred million? A billion? More? Less? What is the set point for destruction to make things "fair?"

I will say that destruction/war is the last resort. If all the wealthy were gung ho about trying to reform society to higher standards of civilization and humanity then there would obviously be no need. I was more stating that if as a major minority for the way uppers in terms of wealth and power and earth ownership, to them the ends justify the means, and so to the major majority, the ends would also justify the means in revolution. If individual human life is the most valuable thing, then its very simple ethics, just as it would be appropriate to kill 1 to save 2 if inaction would result in them all dying, the ethical decision would be sacrificing 1 so 3 million could live. Since the article was about the wealthiest 89 humans living who have 10 trillion between them, I would say it would be a noble and righteous sacrifice, if the majority wanted to pursue an evolved and appropriate state of civilization and those 89 disagreed, instead of killing perhaps the better option would be boycotting them, shunning their money extra, but that would be too difficult as is seen example in strikes, when because of the nature of the things we are discussing, someone who is starving will do the work for the wage the strikers are striking about, so yea, off with their heads. What do you think of revolutions of history of this sort, the beheading of kings and queens, the 50s of violent protests and attempted revolutions across the world in the past 5 years alone let alone 50?

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it wouldn't. It hasn't worked before and it would not be a step in the right direction.

Now answer my question: how wealthy does one have to be to merit destruction from you? One million? A hundred million? A billion? More? Less? What is the set point for destruction to make things "fair?"

I will say that destruction/war is the last resort. If all the wealthy were gung ho about trying to reform society to higher standards of civilization and humanity then there would obviously be no need. I was more stating that if as a major minority for the way uppers in terms of wealth and power and earth ownership, to them the ends justify the means, and so to the major majority, the ends would also justify the means in revolution. If individual human life is the most valuable thing, then its very simple ethics, just as it would be appropriate to kill 1 to save 2 if inaction would result in them all dying, the ethical decision would be sacrificing 1 so 3 million could live. Since the article was about the wealthiest 89 humans living who have 10 trillion between them, I would say it would be a noble and righteous sacrifice, if the majority wanted to pursue an evolved and appropriate state of civilization and those 89 disagreed, instead of killing perhaps the better option would be boycotting them, shunning their money extra, but that would be too difficult as is seen example in strikes, when because of the nature of the things we are discussing, someone who is starving will do the work for the wage the strikers are striking about, so yea, off with their heads. What do you think of revolutions of history of this sort, the beheading of kings and queens, the 50s of violent protests and attempted revolutions across the world in the past 5 years alone let alone 50?

So basically you are saying you want to murder people and take their stuff. Okay. Why end at this 89 people? Why not murder the 1,500 billionaires in the world and take their stuff too?

Again, I ask. Where do you draw the line? Give me a dollar amount. Having a 100 million get you a death sentence? 10?

What I'm hearing is, as long as the majority think they deserve your stuff more than you do and that you are being selfish with your stuff, they can kill you and take your stuff. Can you not see where such a thought process leads?

reply to post by ImaFungi


They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it wouldn't. It hasn't worked before and it would not be a step in the right direction.

Now answer my question: how wealthy does one have to be to merit destruction from you? One million? A hundred million? A billion? More? Less? What is the set point for destruction to make things "fair?"

I will say that destruction/war is the last resort. If all the wealthy were gung ho about trying to reform society to higher standards of civilization and humanity then there would obviously be no need. I was more stating that if as a major minority for the way uppers in terms of wealth and power and earth ownership, to them the ends justify the means, and so to the major majority, the ends would also justify the means in revolution. If individual human life is the most valuable thing, then its very simple ethics, just as it would be appropriate to kill 1 to save 2 if inaction would result in them all dying, the ethical decision would be sacrificing 1 so 3 million could live. Since the article was about the wealthiest 89 humans living who have 10 trillion between them, I would say it would be a noble and righteous sacrifice, if the majority wanted to pursue an evolved and appropriate state of civilization and those 89 disagreed, instead of killing perhaps the better option would be boycotting them, shunning their money extra, but that would be too difficult as is seen example in strikes, when because of the nature of the things we are discussing, someone who is starving will do the work for the wage the strikers are striking about, so yea, off with their heads. What do you think of revolutions of history of this sort, the beheading of kings and queens, the 50s of violent protests and attempted revolutions across the world in the past 5 years alone let alone 50?

So basically you are saying you want to murder people and take their stuff. Okay. Why end at this 89 people? Why not murder the 1,500 billionaires in the world and take their stuff too?

Again, I ask. Where do you draw the line? Give me a dollar amount. Having a 100 million get you a death sentence? 10?

What I'm hearing is, as long as the majority think they deserve your stuff more than you do and that you are being selfish with your stuff, they can kill you and take your stuff. Can you not see where such a thought process leads?

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Why is it ok for 89 people to take 3 billion peoples stuff including hope for a minimally decent existence, but not ok for 3 billion people to take 89 peoples stuff?

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it wouldn't. It hasn't worked before and it would not be a step in the right direction.

Now answer my question: how wealthy does one have to be to merit destruction from you? One million? A hundred million? A billion? More? Less? What is the set point for destruction to make things "fair?"

I will say that destruction/war is the last resort. If all the wealthy were gung ho about trying to reform society to higher standards of civilization and humanity then there would obviously be no need. I was more stating that if as a major minority for the way uppers in terms of wealth and power and earth ownership, to them the ends justify the means, and so to the major majority, the ends would also justify the means in revolution. If individual human life is the most valuable thing, then its very simple ethics, just as it would be appropriate to kill 1 to save 2 if inaction would result in them all dying, the ethical decision would be sacrificing 1 so 3 million could live. Since the article was about the wealthiest 89 humans living who have 10 trillion between them, I would say it would be a noble and righteous sacrifice, if the majority wanted to pursue an evolved and appropriate state of civilization and those 89 disagreed, instead of killing perhaps the better option would be boycotting them, shunning their money extra, but that would be too difficult as is seen example in strikes, when because of the nature of the things we are discussing, someone who is starving will do the work for the wage the strikers are striking about, so yea, off with their heads. What do you think of revolutions of history of this sort, the beheading of kings and queens, the 50s of violent protests and attempted revolutions across the world in the past 5 years alone let alone 50?

So basically you are saying you want to murder people and take their stuff. Okay. Why end at this 89 people? Why not murder the 1,500 billionaires in the world and take their stuff too?

Again, I ask. Where do you draw the line? Give me a dollar amount. Having a 100 million get you a death sentence? 10?

What I'm hearing is, as long as the majority think they deserve your stuff more than you do and that you are being selfish with your stuff, they can kill you and take your stuff. Can you not see where such a thought process leads?

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Why is it ok for 89 people to take 3 billion peoples stuff including hope for a minimally decent existence, but not ok for 3 billion people to take 89 peoples stuff?

Did they? Or do you simply make that assumption?

Now, answer the question. What is the cut off point for being murdered and having your stuff taken? 5 million? 10? I got to know so I remember to keep one dollar under.

TKDRL
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

Something about a camel and the eye of a needle...

TKDRL
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

Except it's not really a big pile of money is it? Assets to include businesses and factories and all sorts of things that most likely employ thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it wouldn't. It hasn't worked before and it would not be a step in the right direction.

Now answer my question: how wealthy does one have to be to merit destruction from you? One million? A hundred million? A billion? More? Less? What is the set point for destruction to make things "fair?"

I will say that destruction/war is the last resort. If all the wealthy were gung ho about trying to reform society to higher standards of civilization and humanity then there would obviously be no need. I was more stating that if as a major minority for the way uppers in terms of wealth and power and earth ownership, to them the ends justify the means, and so to the major majority, the ends would also justify the means in revolution. If individual human life is the most valuable thing, then its very simple ethics, just as it would be appropriate to kill 1 to save 2 if inaction would result in them all dying, the ethical decision would be sacrificing 1 so 3 million could live. Since the article was about the wealthiest 89 humans living who have 10 trillion between them, I would say it would be a noble and righteous sacrifice, if the majority wanted to pursue an evolved and appropriate state of civilization and those 89 disagreed, instead of killing perhaps the better option would be boycotting them, shunning their money extra, but that would be too difficult as is seen example in strikes, when because of the nature of the things we are discussing, someone who is starving will do the work for the wage the strikers are striking about, so yea, off with their heads. What do you think of revolutions of history of this sort, the beheading of kings and queens, the 50s of violent protests and attempted revolutions across the world in the past 5 years alone let alone 50?

So basically you are saying you want to murder people and take their stuff. Okay. Why end at this 89 people? Why not murder the 1,500 billionaires in the world and take their stuff too?

Again, I ask. Where do you draw the line? Give me a dollar amount. Having a 100 million get you a death sentence? 10?

What I'm hearing is, as long as the majority think they deserve your stuff more than you do and that you are being selfish with your stuff, they can kill you and take your stuff. Can you not see where such a thought process leads?

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Why is it ok for 89 people to take 3 billion peoples stuff including hope for a minimally decent existence, but not ok for 3 billion people to take 89 peoples stuff?

Did they? Or do you simply make that assumption?

Now, answer the question. What is the cut off point for being murdered and having your stuff taken? 5 million? 10? I got to know so I remember to keep one dollar under.

Theres a finite amount of money isnt there, and any more money added just makes the new finite amount that much less valuable? So if the finite amount of money, the wealth, the pie gets bigger and bigger pieces split into fewer and fewer hands, yes the natural rights to life of 3 billion people are taken away by a cruelly fixed game. I already told you if they were down for the change there would be no need for harm. If the majority decided on change, and they didnt agree to partake they can be exiled from the country. Yea they wouldnt be killed, their wealth and assets will be repossessed and divided amongst the impoverished, the totality will need to build a stable square one before starting to build any house of cards on the untouchable soil, for hopefully there will be no soil in civilization, what is it 3.0. A.D.S, after death of satan or something like that. Ya know trying to rid earth of evil and corruption and poverty is like trying to create a more perfect world, it will be inevitable if mankind truly can handle existing as an intelligence, progression, or proverbial up is not down ya know. We came from down, the animal ways, we have gotten nowhere, all our progression thus far has resulted in more comfortable means in which to reproduce. Maybe you and they really arent mature enough, what do you think you need, a few more decades in the mixer? I hope you guys know what your doing and have a plan because humanities future in the hands of ignorance is the opposite of intelligent.

NavyDoc

TKDRL
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

Except it's not really a big pile of money is it? Assets to include businesses and factories and all sorts of things that most likely employ thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Having a massive quantity of money is not a skill. If I had a billion dollars I bet I can invest in quite a few businesses and factories. If I had a billion dollars I could bet 10 million on red as a witticism.

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

TKDRL
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

Except it's not really a big pile of money is it? Assets to include businesses and factories and all sorts of things that most likely employ thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Having a massive quantity of money is not a skill. If I had a billion dollars I bet I can invest in quite a few businesses and factories. If I had a billion dollars I could bet 10 million on red as a witticism.

And those businesses they invest in provide jobs. Getting and holding that amount of assets is indeed a skill set. If you were given a billon, I don't doubt that you'd lose it all quite easily.

After a generation or two, redistributed wealth would shift again into the hands of the clever.

Again, at what level do I have to get before you take my stuff and you kick me out or kill me? How much wealth am I allowed to have?

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it wouldn't. It hasn't worked before and it would not be a step in the right direction.

Now answer my question: how wealthy does one have to be to merit destruction from you? One million? A hundred million? A billion? More? Less? What is the set point for destruction to make things "fair?"

I will say that destruction/war is the last resort. If all the wealthy were gung ho about trying to reform society to higher standards of civilization and humanity then there would obviously be no need. I was more stating that if as a major minority for the way uppers in terms of wealth and power and earth ownership, to them the ends justify the means, and so to the major majority, the ends would also justify the means in revolution. If individual human life is the most valuable thing, then its very simple ethics, just as it would be appropriate to kill 1 to save 2 if inaction would result in them all dying, the ethical decision would be sacrificing 1 so 3 million could live. Since the article was about the wealthiest 89 humans living who have 10 trillion between them, I would say it would be a noble and righteous sacrifice, if the majority wanted to pursue an evolved and appropriate state of civilization and those 89 disagreed, instead of killing perhaps the better option would be boycotting them, shunning their money extra, but that would be too difficult as is seen example in strikes, when because of the nature of the things we are discussing, someone who is starving will do the work for the wage the strikers are striking about, so yea, off with their heads. What do you think of revolutions of history of this sort, the beheading of kings and queens, the 50s of violent protests and attempted revolutions across the world in the past 5 years alone let alone 50?

So basically you are saying you want to murder people and take their stuff. Okay. Why end at this 89 people? Why not murder the 1,500 billionaires in the world and take their stuff too?

Again, I ask. Where do you draw the line? Give me a dollar amount. Having a 100 million get you a death sentence? 10?

What I'm hearing is, as long as the majority think they deserve your stuff more than you do and that you are being selfish with your stuff, they can kill you and take your stuff. Can you not see where such a thought process leads?

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Why is it ok for 89 people to take 3 billion peoples stuff including hope for a minimally decent existence, but not ok for 3 billion people to take 89 peoples stuff?

Did they? Or do you simply make that assumption?

Now, answer the question. What is the cut off point for being murdered and having your stuff taken? 5 million? 10? I got to know so I remember to keep one dollar under.

Theres a finite amount of money isnt there, and any more money added just makes the new finite amount that much less valuable? So if the finite amount of money, the wealth, the pie gets bigger and bigger pieces split into fewer and fewer hands, yes the natural rights to life of 3 billion people are taken away by a cruelly fixed game. I already told you if they were down for the change there would be no need for harm. If the majority decided on change, and they didnt agree to partake they can be exiled from the country. Yea they wouldnt be killed, their wealth and assets will be repossessed and divided amongst the impoverished, the totality will need to build a stable square one before starting to build any house of cards on the untouchable soil, for hopefully there will be no soil in civilization, what is it 3.0. A.D.S, after death of satan or something like that. Ya know trying to rid earth of evil and corruption and poverty is like trying to create a more perfect world, it will be inevitable if mankind truly can handle existing as an intelligence, progression, or proverbial up is not down ya know. We came from down, the animal ways, we have gotten nowhere, all our progression thus far has resulted in more comfortable means in which to reproduce. Maybe you and they really arent mature enough, what do you think you need, a few more decades in the mixer? I hope you guys know what your doing and have a plan because humanities future in the hands of ignorance is the opposite of intelligent.

Your simplistic and rather frightening "final solution" is directly the opposite of intelligent.

reply to post by NavyDoc


This where I think many are simply short-sighted.

Get/kill/torture the evil rich!

Um. . . . then what?

(wait 20 years and do it again)


I see these people begging about the poor people in 3rd world countries, but not one damned word about the leaders of these 3rd world countries who take billions yearly in foreign aid and pad their off-shore bank accounts!

Short-sighted, emotionally fueled debate!

But must tip my hat, nice job keeping it reasoned!